Re: DAP-ACTION-730: Ask zhiqiang to update the battery test suite to match latest battery spec (coordinating with marcos)

> Btw. the Chrome Android bug of missing an implementation of chargingTime and dischargingTime attributes has been fixed couple of days ago, see:
> 
>  https://crbug.com/401553

great!

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP)

www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch



> On Feb 25, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Zhiqiang, All,
> 
>> On 25 Feb 2015, at 05:00, Zhang, Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> I suspect at least some of the failed tests in battery-interface-idlharness.html
>>> and battery-interface.html are related to the fact Chrome is not fully WebIDL
>>> spec conformant yet, see: http://crbug.com/43394
>>> 
>>> Zhiqiang - are you able to track the root cause of these failures? I'd guess
>>> many tests that use idlharness.js would suffer from the same failures, if this
>>> is (partially) related to bug 43394 as I suspect without diving deep.
>> 
>> Absolutely. There is also a description of Web IDL in Blink at
>> 
>> http://www.chromium.org/blink/webidl
>> 
>> ... which lists some of the issues. I will check them deeply.
> 
> Thank you. Please report back your findings when you've investigated this further.
> 
>>> * [FAIL] battery-plugging-in-manual.html
> 
> [For the reference:]
> 
>  http://www.w3c-test.org/battery-status/battery-plugging-in-manual.html
> 
>>> 3 Pass, 1 Fail
>>> 
>>> - 1 test fails with the message: assert_equals: The value of the
>>> dischargingTime attribute must be set to Infinity. expected Infinity but got
>>> 10380
>>> 
>>> This seem to be a bug in the implementation, that is in conflict with the
>>> following assertion in the CR spec:
>>> 
>>> [[
>>> 
>>> The dischargingTime attribute must be set to the value positive Infinity, if the
>>> battery is charging
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/CR-battery-status-20141209/#widl-
>>> BatteryManager-dischargingTime
>>> 
>>> ]]
>>> 
>>> Zhiqiang - correct? If my hunch is correct, we should file a bug against the
>>> implementation and find someone to fix it.
>> 
>> Yes, you are right. Since I have no OS X environment, please help file the bug, thanks.
> 
> I've identified an Intel contributor who was interested in fixing this soon. We'll report back when the fix has landed.
> 
>>> * [PASS] battery-promise.html
>> 
>> I added a new test to this test file to check that getBattery() always return the same promise at
>> 
>> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1623
>> 
>> ... please help review it, thanks.
> 
> Looks good to me. Thanks for adding a new test for this.
> 
>>> Related to test suite itself, I only have minor editorial nit:
>>> 
>>> * s/navigator.battery/BatteryManager/g to update the descriptions of some
>>> of the tests.
>> 
>> Updated the tests' descriptions at
>> 
>> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1644
>> 
>> ... please review it too.
> 
> Ditto.
> 
>>> A reasonable plan forward might be to:
>>> 
>>> * investigate the reasons for test failures on known implementations
>>> * address the assumed implementation bugs
>>> * assess the impact on the spec progress: a precondition to exit CR would be
>>> to get two implementations, for example, if the Chrome bugs
>>> (http://crbug.com/43394, others?) are fixed, and Mozilla updates its
>>> implementation (https://bugzil.la/1047119)
>> 
>> Good plan. Let's move forward together.
> 
> Btw. the Chrome Android bug of missing an implementation of chargingTime and dischargingTime attributes has been fixed couple of days ago, see:
> 
>  https://crbug.com/401553
> 
> Zhiqiang - you may want to rerun the relevant tests on a fresh Android build.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Anssi
> 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2015 12:15:19 UTC